Global Warming Evidence Full of Bugs
posted 24th December 2009 in Environment, Science by The Green Man
A new study shows that evidence for global warming is extremely full of bugs. Well, to be precise, it’s full of butterflies and moths. Newly released scientific findings show that many species of butterflies and moths have added an extra round of breeding into the year over the last couple of decades, as their local climates have warmed, allowing more time for an additional generation of caterpillars to munch through leaves before entering into hibernation.
This line of evidence, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with emails from the University of East Anglia. The work was performed by Florian Altermatt, a Swiss ecologist currently working at the University of California.
Tags: butterflies, climate change, ecology, global warming, insects
 |  |  |
i wish the bees would return.
All average global temperatures since 1895 are predicted by a simple model. There was no need to consider change to the level of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas.
The model, with an eye-opening graph, is presented in the October 16 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true.
This model predicted the ongoing temperature decline trend. None of the 20 or so models that the IPCC uses do.
Dan,
If the graph on the page you refer to — one of sunspot oscillation — were used to predict global temperature across the 20th century, it would do a very poor job. This is because sunset activity is one and only one of many factors influencing the climate. In the pdf linked to from that article, you note that you have to use an “offset” — meaning that you move your curve around — in order to get your predictors to match reality.
Also, you ought to note that you (since you wrote that “model”) are predicting temperature variation with temperature variation. You call it “PDO” (for Pacific Decadal Oscillation), but to cut through the verbiage what that measures is the temperature of the water in the Pacific Ocean. LO and BEHOLD!, the temperature of the Pacific Ocean tracks very closely to global temperature. You may achieve a close match, with some additional fudging, but it’s a trivial one.
Jim,
I can not imagine what you mean by ’sunspot oscillation’. The model predicts average global temperatures since 1900 with the standard deviation of the difference between concurrent points of 0.064 C. It predicts up trends and downtrends including the recent downtrend. The excellent correlation demonstrates that your perception is wrong that many factors [significantly] influence climate. Your statement regarding ‘offset’ reveals that you don’t understand the method very well.
What was actually discovered by the research is that the temperature decline from 1941 to 1973 was 57% less than it would have been without the high sunspot time-integral during that period and the temperature increase from 1973 to 2005 was 47% more than it would have been without the high sunspot time-integral. There is no ‘fudging’. It is a straight forward application of the first law of thermodynamics (I called it ‘energy balance’) and numerical integration.
“Oscillation” is a word that means “repetitive variation.”
You fitted a graph using a variant of your dependent variable as an independent variable. No wonder you got a good fit.
For this reason, correlation does not equal ________. It rhymes with “oscillation,” but has fewer syllables.
Jim, You have just revealed that you do not understand the research. Try reading the second paragraph of my last post again or try reading the paper again.